NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-24141
Edward L. Suntrup, Referee
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE (Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CIAIII: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Machine Operator R. J. Hedrington was excessive
and wholly disproportionate to the charge leveled against him (Carrier's File
80o-16-B-63 )·
(2) Mr. R. J. Hedrington shall be reinstated as a section laborer
with seniority and all other rights as such unimpaired."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant entered service on June 2, 1976 and worked for
Carrier as a Group III Machine (or Brushcutter) Operator.
Because the nature of the work performed by Claimant required him to live away
from his home or fry headquarters point during the week Claimant was, therefore,
entitled to reimbursement for the cost of meals and lodging as so stipulated by
Rule 16(b)(2) of the Agreement between the parties. Rule 16 reads, in pertinent
part:
"(b) Employees while away from their regular outfit or
regular headquarters by direction of the Carrier will be
reimbursed for cost of meals and lodging as follows:
(2) Other employees, including those covered by Rule
17, shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of lodging
and meals, except that this shall not apply on the
first day to the mid-day lunch customarily carried,
nor shall it apply to employees traveling in exercise
of their seniority rights.
Carrier had an informal policy of reimbursing machine operators and helpers for
actual, reasonable expenses, rather than the dollar figures specified under
Arbitration Award No. 298. On May 18, 1977 Claimant received a letter from
the Regional Engineer cautioning him about excessive expenses. When Claimant
was then held out of service by the Roadmaster on September 12, 1979 for allegedly
falsifying his expense account for a period of several months, Claimant requested
a hearing which was subsequently held on September 21, 1979· As a result of this
investigation Claimant was notified on September 28, 1979 that he was being
dismissed from service.
A review of the transcript of the investigation shows, in-an incontrovertible
manner, that sufficient substantial evidence is present to lead a reasonable mind
to accept, in this case, the finding that Claimant is guilty as charged. It only
remains, therefore, to determine if the penalty imposed by Carrier is appropriate.
Award Number
24116
Page
2
Docket Number
MW-24141
Numerous Awards by this Board in the past (Second Division No.
1850;
Third
Division Nos.
2646, 2696, 8715
inter alia) have pointed out that theft is a
matter of grave and serious concern in the railroad industry and that this Board
will not substitute its own judgment for that of a Carrier when such acts are
proven to be true. Given the facts of this case, this Board will not disturb
this tradition.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June
21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
i
By
~e
-~-,.,.Wc.L.- ~ ~ '/-7
~L-
e.:G.G-c / r-
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
14th
day of January
1983.
~,_.